Thread Rating:

Canyonero
Canyonero
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 509
January 6th, 2013 at 10:52:08 AM permalink
Quote: sodawater

gaffed is a synonym for intentionally rigged. it means the same thing. it's not what you're thinking, gaffe like an accidental mistake.



You are correct about the meaning and my error. Thanks.

I stand by the rest of my remarks though. Gamblers WANT to trust online casinos / pokerrooms really bad, despite tons of proof about what is really going on.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 260
  • Posts: 13528
January 6th, 2013 at 11:06:12 AM permalink
Quote: Canyonero

Gamblers WANT to trust online casinos / pokerrooms really bad, despite tons of proof about what is really going on.

That may be. I know its hard to gaff a roulette wheel by accident ... but just about any explanation seems to be accepted for awhile. All these programming errors, consultant's error, programming "glitch", ... no one ever seems to come right out and say blatant fraud. And after some rigamarole is applied, it seems these sites re-emerge under new names with newly whitewashed software.

I'm told the demand during Prohibition was so high that some really rot-gut whiskey was often tolerated simply because that is all there was. Perhaps its similar in internet gambling sites. The demand is so high that quality is totally being ignored.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1197
  • Posts: 19975
January 7th, 2013 at 9:22:06 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

Perhaps its similar in internet gambling sites. The demand is so high that quality is totally being ignored.



Quote: Wikipedia page on faro

The famed scam artist Canada Bill Jones loved the game so much that, when he was asked why he played at one game that was known to be rigged, he replied, "It's the only game in town."

-- source

As an update, I was out of the country all last week, so couldn't devote much time to this. I just gave Realistic Games 48 hours to make a statement in their defense before I add them to my blacklist.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
teliot
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 1956
January 7th, 2013 at 10:11:28 AM permalink
Betfred made this statement a short while ago at Casinomeister:

Quote:

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.

  1. Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
  2. On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
  3. The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
  4. Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.
Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.

Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Canyonero
Canyonero
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 509
January 7th, 2013 at 11:05:00 AM permalink
Ok, there is all kind of stuff to get mad about in here, let me focus on this:

Basically, the involved parties are admitting that this game was intentionally deceptive, i.e. not performing the way a real deck of cards would. Not only is that shady and unacceptale, turns out it is also illegal:

Quoting the Gibraltar gambling regulations (as posted on Casinomeister):

(5) A licence holder should not implement game designs or features that may
reasonably be expected to mislead the customer about the likelihood of particular
results occurring. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) Where a game simulates a physical device the theoretical probabilities and visual
representation of the device should correspond to the features and actions of the
physical device (e.g. roulette wheel).

http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/s..._standards.pdf

Betfred and their providers derserve to die for this, but, of course, they wont.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 7th, 2013 at 11:19:32 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

Please people think for a moment.

Apparently there is this casino somewhere that offers "Cutesy Game" in real money mode and there is no House Edge, its just a totally fair game.

Now WHY would a casino do that? I do not know of ANY Brick and Mortar casino that offers a ZERO HOUSE EDGE game and tells the players "Don't Worry. We will pay the croupier his salary out of thin air."


There is at least one casino in Arizona that offers zero house edge bets on the Field, buy 4 and buy 10. I have designed many zero edge games for online casinos (at their request). They're somewhat equivalent to loss leaders except they don't actually lose but break even. There is nothing inconsistent about offering casino players a good deal. Not everyone will take it all of the time, and the rest of the time is how they pay the bills. It's the same reason that players make hopping hard 6 bets instead of taking free odds, or play 6/5 Jacks or Better instead of blackjack: most gamblers are not price-sensitive (to house edge). The house doesn't need to profit from every single player to continue operations. They just need to profit in the aggregate.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 7th, 2013 at 11:20:58 AM permalink
Quote:

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.

  1. Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
  2. On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
  3. The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
  4. Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.
Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.

Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.

Kind regards,

Aaron



Be nice if they could decide how to spell the name of the development company... (3 different spellings...)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
January 7th, 2013 at 2:49:57 PM permalink
Quote: Canyonero

Ok, there is all kind of stuff to get mad about in here, let me focus on this:

Basically, the involved parties are admitting that this game was intentionally deceptive, i.e. not performing the way a real deck of cards would. Not only is that shady and unacceptale, turns out it is also illegal:

Quoting the Gibraltar gambling regulations (as posted on Casinomeister):

(5) A licence holder should not implement game designs or features that may
reasonably be expected to mislead the customer about the likelihood of particular
results occurring. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) Where a game simulates a physical device the theoretical probabilities and visual
representation of the device should correspond to the features and actions of the
physical device (e.g. roulette wheel).

http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/s..._standards.pdf

Betfred and their providers derserve to die for this, but, of course, they wont.



I don't know much about this, but since these companies seem to be located and licensed in real countries with real legal systems, isn't there some legal recourse here? ie, sue the assholes?

I don't buy the argument that the casino is not responsible because they licensed the software from someone else. If they are going to offer someone else's software then they are responsible for testing it before unleashing it on their customers. When the customers deposited into the account they entered into a relationship with the casino, not the software providers.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1197
  • Posts: 19975
January 9th, 2013 at 9:33:31 AM permalink
I just added Realistic Games to my blacklist. This after giving them 48 hours to provide a statement in their defense. They never replied to this offer.

I also notice the RG web site seems to be down.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
teliot
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 1956
January 9th, 2013 at 10:19:41 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I just added Realistic Games to my blacklist. This after giving them 48 hours to provide a statement in their defense. They never replied to this offer.

I also notice the RG web site seems to be down.


Here is Realistic Game's reply to me, received 01/07/2013. I did not take them up on their offer. They required a condfidentiality agreement that would preclude me from disclosing any actual wrongdoing, should I become aware of any.

Quote: Andy Cattrell @ Realistic Games

Dear Eliot,

[some content omitted]

Many of the posts I have read on the Casinomeister message board are quite staggering and I feel some information could go a long way to answering some of the assumptions and judgements that I believe have been mistakenly made.

We are happy to discuss the following topics in a second email correspondence in detail

• Company background
• Company founders
• Company aims
• Origins of both games (Reel Deal & Hi Lo Gambler)
• Why 2 versions exist e.g. x1.95 & x2
• Explanation of 3rd party relationships
• Explanation of the Finsoft relationship
• Explanation of a game life cycle on the Finsoft platform detailing development, support, maintenance & testing
• The maths of the games
• Certification of the games

[some content omitted]


I believe the fingers are now currently pointing to Finsoft as the main culprit here, along with complicit online casinos.

Here is the response from the U.K. Gambling Commission when contacted about their certification of Realistic Games:

Quote: UKGC

Dear Sirs

Thank you for the courtesy of requesting permission to publish the Gambling Commission’s (the Commission) response. The Commission is happy for you to do so. However, I thought it may also be useful to provide further information on the British regulatory system as there appear to be some misunderstandings so I’ll provide a basic overview of the British system which you may or may not already be aware of.

Firstly, and importantly for gambling software technical standards and testing requirements, we should differentiate between those operators that provide facilities for gambling directly to consumers (i.e. operate a website which takes deposits, verifies the age and identity of customers, accepts bets, pays out winnings, handles complaints etc) and those that provide services such as games to these customer facing operators.

Under the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act) online gambling is currently regulated on a point of supply basis. This means that a gambling company only requires an operating licence if they have certain key equipment located in Great Britain (for example the RNG, servers that store gambling transaction records, settle bets). See section 36(4) of the Act and the Commission’s advice note on remote gambling equipment.

In the case of gambling software developers, as stated in our email of 4 January, a licence is required if any of the licensable activities (manufacture, supply, install, adapt) take place in Britain. It would be an offence to carry out any of those activities without a licence. In the first instance a licence is required to be held in order to avoid an offence being committed.

As you may be aware, much of the online gambling by British citizens is carried out with operators licensed overseas. In fact, the Commission estimates that over 80% of British online gambling activity takes place outside Britain and is therefore not subject to the Act or the licence conditions and codes of practice attached to a Commission operating licence. This can result in confusion amongst consumers as websites can be operated in different jurisdictions and be subject to different requirements such as technical standards, complaints procedures and other matters.

On 3 December 2012 the government published draft legislation which is intended to amend the Act. The proposed new law would mean that remote gambling by consumers living in Britain is regulated on a point of consumption basis. Consequently, all operators selling into the British market, whether based here or abroad, would be required to hold a Commission licence to enable them to transact with British consumers and to advertise in Great Britain. Further information is available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/9559.aspx. One of the effects of the new law would be that because all online casinos transacting with British consumers would require a Commission licence, all games played by British consumers would, for the first time, have to comply with the Commission’s technical standards. As at present testing could be carried out by either the operator contracting with the customer or the gambling software licence holder. However, ultimate responsibility for ensuring a game was satisfactorily tested would still rest with the customer contracting operator i.e. the online casino operator.

In the scenario that you have raised the Commission has no legal or regulatory powers over the gambling provided from Gibraltar under a Gibraltese licence. If a game, manufactured by a Commission licensee, is made available for gambling on under a Gibraltar licence it must meet the requirements of that Gibraltar licence in terms of game fairness for consumers. Different jurisdictions have different regulatory requirements, and we believe it is unnecessary to require a game to be tested to the Commission’s technical standards if it is only ever offered under a non-Commission licence. Instead, the game should meet the technical standards in the jurisdiction where it is licensed.

To further explain this, one could consider an example of where a software developer based abroad supplied a game to an online casino licensed and regulated by the Commission. In that case, the software developer would require a gambling software licence from the Commission in order to legal supply a game into Britain (even if the development i.e. manufacture of the software took place abroad). That game would need to comply with the Commission’s technical standards in order to be offered to consumers by a Commission licensed online casino. The game may have already been tested for compliance against technical standards of the jurisdiction it was manufactured in but ultimately that is irrelevant – it is the Commission’s technical standards that it must comply with in order for it to be made available by a Commission licence holder. If the game does not meet the Commission’s technical standards, it cannot be offered by a Commission licensed online casino.

In his email, Mr Garvie states “If this is the case, to all intents and purposed, for online players a UKGC seal would be of no inherent value what-so-ever as it offers the customer no regulator protection.” This is incorrect. A Gambling Commission licence offers regulatory protection to consumers gambling with Commission licensed operators. British consumers choosing to gamble in other jurisdictions are afforded the regulatory protections of those jurisdictions. The Commission published an information note giving advice for consumers on some of the issues to look out for when gambling online, one of which is identifying the regulator for a website as just because a website is accessed from Britain does not mean it is regulated here.

I hope this clarifies the position and you now understand why the Commission cannot assist further in this matter.

Yours Sincerely



In my opinion, the UKGC has shown callous disregard for their obligation to protect players from predatory casino programs created or offered by those companies that bear their certification.

  • Jump to: